Letter 27
To my brother bishop,
The situation you describe — a powerful nobleman insisting on his right to nominate the priest for a church on his estate — is familiar to every bishop in Spain, and I do not think there is a formula that resolves it cleanly.
The canonical principle is clear: ordination is the bishop's prerogative, and the nomination of clergy belongs to the church, not to the layman on whose land the church stands. A church built on a nobleman's estate is still a church, and its priest still owes his primary allegiance to the bishop, not to the patron.
The practical reality is also clear: the nobleman built the church, funds it, and is in a position to make the bishop's life uncomfortable if the bishop ignores his wishes entirely. He is also, if he is a generous patron, providing real resources for real ministry in a place that would otherwise have none.
What I have found works — not always, but often — is to invite the patron's preference rather than simply imposing my own choice, while making clear that the final decision is mine and that it is based on the candidate's fitness for ministry. Most patrons, when they understand that their preferred candidate will be seriously considered rather than automatically rejected, are willing to accept a process that preserves episcopal authority in form while acknowledging their interest in substance.
Where I will not compromise: if the patron's preferred candidate is genuinely unsuitable — poorly educated, of bad character, or otherwise unfit for ministry — I will not ordain him regardless of pressure. This I have done, and it has made enemies. It was still right.
Your colleague in the episcopate,
Braulio
Modern English rendering for readability. See the 19th-century translation or original Latin/Greek for scholarly use.